Great vengeance and furious anger aside, I have reached the point where I hope they never bring back the "real" referees. This has become an amazingly entertaining game of one-upsmanship from week to week. I have been able to put aside my fandom of certain teams and learned to ride the wave of awesome that is NFL officiating. I can't wait to see what happens next week.

Originally posted by Sec19Row53Incorrect. Interceptions in the end zone are reviewable. Again, from the NFL Rule Book:

Reviewable Plays. The Replay System will cover the following play situations only:(a) Plays governed by Sideline, Goal Line, End Zone, and End Line:1. Scoring plays, including a runner breaking the plane of the goal line.2. Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted at sideline, goal line, end zone, and end line.3. Runner/receiver in or out of bounds.4. Recovery of loose ball in or out of bounds.

"If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control," the rule states.

The rulebook also states when a simultaneous catch is ruled, you can't review who made the catch. You can only review if it was complete or incomplete.

I agree that Jennings had control. But the assertion I quoted above is 100% correct.

EDIT: My term "possession" above was meant to apply to "who" had possession, not IF the pass was complete/incomplete, though whatever happened there it was definitely a completed pass. Just that WHO had possession is not reviewable.

(edited by Reverend J Shaft on 25.9.12 1047)

Except that they didn't rule simultaneous possession on the field. They didn't rule anything other than Touchdown. So I think it is reviewable, as it relates to was it a touchdown or an interception.

If it were ruled simlutaneous possession, a ruling of Jennings having caught the ball equates to an incompletion (although that is a stretch, I fully admit).

Not that it matters any more, cuz it's a Seahawk win.

Every educated opinion I've read disagrees with your interpretation of this matter. Doesn't mean you're definitely wrong, but it does mean you're probably wrong. Both guys had their hands on the ball, and they called a touchdown; I think it is implied that the interpretation on the field is simultaneous possession. There's not exactly a signal specifically for that. And as the rule very clearly says, that is not reviewable. And no, it wouldn't be reviewed and turned into an incomplete pass, because the ball never hit the ground. It is clearly not an incomplete pass.

Originally posted by ESPNIn Monday's game between the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks, Seattle faced a 4th-and-10 from the Green Bay 24 with eight seconds remaining in the game.

Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson threw a pass into the end zone. Several players, including Seattle wide receiver Golden Tate and Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings, jumped into the air in an attempt to catch the ball.

While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.

When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

Well, the NFL says simultaneous catch in the end zone is reviewable. Per ProFootballTalk.com:

From the league’s release:

“Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson threw a pass into the end zone. Several players, including Seattle wide receiver Golden Tate and Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings, jumped into the air in an attempt to catch the ball.

“While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.

“When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

“Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

“Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

How anyone can look at that replay and decide that both guys came down with equal possession of the ball is way beyond me. I believed ESPN when they said it wasn't reviewable solely because there should be no way anyone can look at that and decide the call on the field should stand. Tate had nothing more than a single out-stretched hand on the ball while Jennings clutched the ball against his chest as he landed on his back.

I am not surprised the league sides with the refs, but I don't actually believe anyone in the league office can really believe that was the right call.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanHow anyone can look at that replay and decide that both guys came down with equal possession of the ball is way beyond me.

Just to play devil's advocate here, when Tate gets both feet down (which he does before Jennings) he has both hands on the ball, therefore take Jennings away and Tate has control of the ball. Jennings has his hands on the ball first, but by the time he gets both feet down Tate also has both hands on the ball and both feet on the ground. In fact Tate has both hands on the ball by the time Jennings gets ONE foot down. Does he (Jennings) technically "have control" until the point when both of his feet are down?

Not being a dick, I genuinely don't know the answer to that, but also from the league's release:

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

There are no degrees of control. If you've got both paws on it when you get your feet (or other body part) down, as long as you go on to do part C you've got possession. You don't have any more or less possession because you've got both hands on it AND got it held against your chest. Pretend Jennings isn't there and by the above defenition a forward pass has been completed to Tate IMO. Leave Jennings there and you've got simultaneous control and a completed forward pass anyway.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanPlus, pass interference and all.

Yeah, but I've lost count of the number of times when I've heard fans say they want to see refs be more lenient in the last couple of minutes because they "don't want refs to decide a game". To be clear, I think these people are great big eejits because *not* making a call can decide a game every bit as much as making a call. Rules should be applied equally from the first minute of week 1 to the last minute of the Super Bowl, but the 'real' refs would quite possibly have not thrown a flag there either.

Which would've been wrong, obviously, but I do think this is a very unusual, difficult call where a greater than normal amount of blame is being placed on the refs because of pre-exisiting (and understandable) replacement ref hate.

Full disclosure: I'm STILL bitter about a much less blatant PI call that wasn't made when Kevin Curtis got clipped on 4th down in the last minute of the Eagles/Cards NFC championship game a few years ago, so I'm not saying I would be anything other than pissed if I was a Packers fan.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanHow anyone can look at that replay and decide that both guys came down with equal possession of the ball is way beyond me.

Just to play devil's advocate here, when Tate gets both feet down (which he does before Jennings) he has both hands on the ball, therefore take Jennings away and Tate has control of the ball. Jennings has his hands on the ball first, but by the time he gets both feet down Tate also has both hands on the ball and both feet on the ground. In fact Tate has both hands on the ball by the time Jennings gets ONE foot down. Does he (Jennings) technically "have control" until the point when both of his feet are down?

Not being a dick, I genuinely don't know the answer to that, but also from the league's release:

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

There are no degrees of control. If you've got both paws on it when you get your feet (or other body part) down, as long as you go on to do part C you've got possession. You don't have any more or less possession because you've got both hands on it AND got it held against your chest. Pretend Jennings isn't there and by the above defenition a forward pass has been completed to Tate IMO. Leave Jennings there and you've got simultaneous control and a completed forward pass anyway.

Tate absolutely did not have control of the ball all the way to the ground. If Jennings is not there and Tate catches the ball with two hands, puts two feet down, and then loses the ball when he goes to the ground, it is not a complete pass. Jennings, on the other hand, was laying on the ground with the ball in both hands and on his chest. I don't see any argument that Jennings didn't complete the catch, I don't see any argument that Tate DID complete the catch.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanPlus, pass interference and all.

Yeah, but I've lost count of the number of times when I've heard fans say they want to see refs be more lenient in the last couple of minutes because they "don't want refs to decide a game". To be clear, I think these people are great big eejits because *not* making a call can decide a game every bit as much as making a call. Rules should be applied equally from the first minute of week 1 to the last minute of the Super Bowl, but the 'real' refs would quite possibly have not thrown a flag there either.

Well those refs would be wrong and the fans saying refs should call the game differently in the closing minutes are silly. I think it is a given that there is going to be more contact when a bunch of guys jump for a ball in the air in the end zone, so that has to be taken into account, but if the line for what's acceptable and what's not is drawn in such a way that that kind of play is deemed OK, then that is not a very well-drawn line.

Originally posted by Reverend J ShaftOfficial statement from NFLWhile the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.

That is total BS. That should be able to be called while watching a review. The competition committee really needs to review this rule.

People can debate the "Catch" all they want until they are blue in the face but the fact is that the PI non-call should have ended the game rendering the "catch" result moot.

From the 56 second mark Tate has two hands firmly on the ball AND has both feet down. At that stage Jennings still doesn't have both feet down. Tate never at any stage therafter on his way to the ground stops having both hands on the ball. From the second angle you see Tate has both hands on the ball from the 1:13/1:14 mark (you can't see when Jennings' feet touch the ground from that angle) but again, once he has two hands on the ball Tate never stops having two hands on the ball. 100% that's a catch by Tate.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanJennings, on the other hand, was laying on the ground with the ball in both hands and on his chest.

His chest is irrelevant. You don't get extra points for having really secure control. Possession is digital, not anologue. Tate has both hands on the ball and both feet down before Jennings. That's not debatable. The ball ain't bobbling around in his hands either (even once they're both on the ground Jennings can't rip it from him which suggests his hands are vbery firmly on the ball) so I can't see how you can look at that tape and overturn a call of TD to Seattle. Vive la difference, I guess.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanWell those refs would be wrong and the fans saying refs should call the game differently in the closing minutes are silly.

Agreed one million, billion percent. Just saying that with regular refs and in the absence of anything else, the failure to throw a flag there wouldn't be getting nearly as much coverage and many folks would even be saying you can't expect to see a flag "because it's the last play of the game and refs shouldn't decide the outcome". Again, these people are morons but I've seen much more egregious cases of offensive pass interference go unflagged over the years. If anything it's almost an unwritten rule that anything short of the use of lethal weapons by a receiver is allowed to slide. Yes it's wrong, but let's not act like the replacement refs started that particular trend.

It doesn't matter that Tate at some arbitrary moment had two hands on the ball. Remember a few years ago when Calvin Johnson had a touchdown taken away because he - as I remember, I might have the details wrong - he left the ball on the ground as he ran out of bounds in the end zone even though he clearly had two hands on the ball and two feet in bounds in the end zone? You have to control the ball all the way to the ground. Tate absolutely did not. The NFL says both players controlled the ball all the way to the ground, but the NFL is 100 percent wrong. Jennings had the ball against his body all the way to the ground, Tate has his hands on the ball at one point, is pulled away, and then gets his hands back on the ball as both players are on the ground.

Can you find any credible source at all that is not in someway a Seahawks partisan that agrees with your interpretation? The opinion that this was a blown call seems about as universal as anything can be in sports.

You have to control the ball all the way to the ground. Tate absolutely did not.

Yes he does. From the moment he first gets two hands on the ball with both feet on the ground he *never stops* having both hands on the ball all the way to the ground. He never has control of the bal while both men are in the air, but he does have control of the ball before Jennings lands (and thus before an INT can be completed) and never loses control of the ball at any stage after that. So good is his control all the way to the ground that Jennings' best efforts to rip it from him are unsuccessful.

Please, point me to the time in the video I linked where you see Tate's hand comes off the ball after the 0:56 (or 1:13) mark . I don't see it.

Can you find any credible source at all that is not in someway a Seahawks partisan that agrees with your interpretation?

Unless the NFL Officiating Department is in some way a Seahawks partisan, yes, I can.

The opinion that this was a blown call seems about as universal as anything can be in sports.

And the fact many of these people use the utterly irrelevant fact Jennings has the ball gripped to his chest where Tate does not as evidence to support their case tends to suggest they need to read the rules a bit more closely.

Originally posted by dMrYou have to control the ball all the way to the ground. Tate absolutely did not.

Yes he does. From the moment he first gets two hands on the ball with both feet on the ground he *never stops* having both hands on the ball all the way to the ground. He never has control of the bal while both men are in the air, but he does have control of the ball before Jennings lands (and thus before an INT can be completed) and never loses control of the ball at any stage after that. So good is his control all the way to the ground that Jennings' best efforts to rip it from him are unsuccessful.

Please, point me to the time in the video I linked where you see Tate's hand comes off the ball after the 0:56 (or 1:13) mark . I don't see it.

I can't see the video you linked to. But the moment Jennings landed on the ground, Tate's left arm came off the ball and he had just his right hand on the ball, and that hand was certainly not "controlling" it by any sense I know.

Can you find any credible source at all that is not in someway a Seahawks partisan that agrees with your interpretation?

Unless the NFL Officiating Department is in some way a Seahawks partisan, yes, I can.

OK, let me rephrase: Can you find such an opinion from anyone who doesn't stand to lose face if the fact that everybody else seems to know, that the call was blown, is admitted?

The opinion that this was a blown call seems about as universal as anything can be in sports.

And the fact many of these people use the utterly irrelevant fact Jennings has the ball gripped to his chest where Tate does not as evidence to support their case tends to suggest they need to read the rules a bit more closely.

What?

Jennings controlled the ball. As evidence, there's the fact that he has two hands and is clutching it against his chest, while laying on the ground, at a time when Golden Tate has one hand on the ball with no control by any forced, stretched definition of the word. Just because you don't HAVE to have the ball against your chest to control it doesn't mean Jennings doesn't have control because he has the ball against his chest. This makes no sense.

Three wide receivers - Victor Cruz and two guys whose voices I didn't recognize and chyron I didn't see - were just on NFL Live on ESPN saying it should have been ruled a pick. Wide receivers, guys who would be inclined to side with the receiver, siding with the defensive back. Everybody with an educated opinion disagrees with you on this. I'm guessing that won't be enough to convince you, because it's not "proof" per se, but when on one side it is incompetent refs, a league trying to save face in an ongoing labor dispute, some Seahawks fans, and you, and on the other side is everybody else, it seems likely to me that the other side is right.

This whole thing is complete and udder crap, because if they (see: offensive line, Packers) hadn't given up nine sacks, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have had to worry about this final catch. Even Rodgers admitted in his press conference that "We shouldn't have been there to begin with........"

Originally posted by JimBob SkeeterThis whole thing is complete and udder crap, because if they (see: offensive line, Packers) hadn't given up nine sacks, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have had to worry about this final catch. Even Rodgers admitted in his press conference that "We shouldn't have been there to begin with........"

Fair enough, but should fans have to worry (in every close game) that the refs might shaft them due to inexperience?

Yes, the replacement offensive line made the controversial call at the end of the game to decide the winner. The line played like shit in the first half. They made adjustments and did a somewhat better job in the second half. That's the way the game played out. Players getting beaten by other players, scheming coaches trying to out-scheme each other, sacks, tackles, all of that is considered a part of the game that is directly effected by the performance of the players. This, on the other hand, was a judgment call by two men who did not agree with each other, did not confer with each other, and do not have the experience to be in that situation. They are, by definition, in over their heads. The "real" refs aren't perfect, far from it. But I have a hard time believing they would not have gotten at least *one* part of that whole series called correctly. This is not the fault of the Scabs. This has to do with Park Avenue being insanely stubborn on an issue that would cost each team around $100k to resolve. It's insane and childish. Unfortunately, it might turn dangerous for either the players or the Scabs because they clearly do not have complete control of the game.

dMr, I couldn't see the video you linked to either, but if it's the same as every other one I *have* seen, Bucs is spot on and adding anything else would be piling on.

Not in the least. Thankfully, we (The Vikes) were able to get by Harbaugh calling a challenge, right after taking his last time out, the refs allowing him to do it, overturning the play, and then GIVE HIM HIS TIME OUT BACK. My point is that if the beloved Pack had been able to do something instead of punt or fumble in the first half, this play at the end of the game probably woudn't have mattered. Rodgers even agreed.

At 1:06 Tate has both hands on the ball and both feet down and never stops having two hands on the ball after that. If you see otherwise, please point me to it (via PM though, because this is just becoming us two going back and forth).

Jennings has his hands on the ball first when they're both in the air, but as neither a pass or an INT can be completed until they land that doesn't matter a jot. If gravity were to take a well deserved rest for a couple of minutes and both buys spent the time suspended in mid-air fighting over the ball it wouldn't matter a jot. All that matters is what happens from when they land and whether possession is maintained from that point to when they go all the way to ground.

OK, let me rephrase: Can you find such an opinion from anyone who doesn't stand to lose face if the fact that everybody else seems to know, that the call was blown, is admitted?

But if we're going to rule out the people who are actually most likely to know that's a bit unfair. Receivers, fans, pundits and everyone else is understandably pissed with the standard of refereeing right now so it's hardly a surprise nobody's rushing to their defence, but that doesn't mean they're right. Also, receivers, fans and pundits frequently don't know *all* of the rules which is why, for example, a whole bunch of people thought the Calvin Johnson catch you referenced was a TD until the NFL said "uh, guys...".

As evidence, there's the fact that he has two hands and is clutching it against his chest, while laying on the ground, at a time when Golden Tate has one hand on the ball

I have seen zero angles which show Tate with only one hand on the ball when they are lying on the ground*. Every angle I've seen, Tate's right hand never leaves the ball from when he lands. Tate's left hand is between the ball and Jennings, so you can't see if it ever leaves the ball but if other angles exist, again, please PM me with linkage and I'll happily say I am very wrong and that you are so very right.

Originally posted by cranlsnBefore they hit the ground (and before Tate's feet hit the ground), Tate's right hand comes off the ball to get a better grip.

But that's fine as long as he gets his hand back on there before Jennings feet hit the ground. You can't see it from that angle, but he does exactly that.

*I mean obviously at some point I'm assuming everyone's hands come off the ball cos otherwise they'd still be there, but the rule isn't that you fight for on the ground till one guy loses, even if some fumbles/pile-ups play out that way.

Maybe it's time for the NFL to go to the instant replay system that the NHL does. Have an NFL official somewhere in NFL headquarters that absolutely knows what he's doing and knows the NFL rules backwards and forwards to review all NFL game replays and make the rulings on them.

Originally posted by JimBob SkeeterNot in the least. Thankfully, we (The Vikes) were able to get by Harbaugh calling a challenge, right after taking his last time out, the refs allowing him to do it, overturning the play, and then GIVE HIM HIS TIME OUT BACK. My point is that if the beloved Pack had been able to do something instead of punt or fumble in the first half, this play at the end of the game probably woudn't have mattered. Rodgers even agreed.

C'mon, you know there's more to it than that. On the final drive alone there's this:

1 - Pass interference call on San Shields on the final drive that SHOULD have been called on Sidney Rice2 - Pass interference non-call on Tate3 - Phantom TD catch by Tate

That's not to say that the Packers weren't slow to figure out what to do on offense. But when you have those three horribly wrong calls in the final 0:48, most of the rest of it is moot.

No, they don't have to offer him anything. He's still got 3 years on his non-voided contract, and will count against the cap. He gets paid, just like Me-shawn was getting paid by the Buccaneers. Given his comments, he's got to be gone (IMHO).